this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2023
2347 points (99.2% liked)

Privacy

32092 readers
409 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

Chat rooms

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

And since you won't be able to modify web pages, it will also mean the end of customization, either for looks (ie. DarkReader, Stylus), conveniance (ie. Tampermonkey) or accessibility.

The community feedback is... interesting to say the least.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] vvvvv@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Basically, it would allow websites to only serve users who comply with website requirements (i.e., no extensions, no ad blockers, only Chrome-based, whatever) whatever these requirements are.

You (your browser) go to a website, example.com, which requires attestation. So you must go to an attestation server and attest your device/browser combo (by telling the attestation server whatever information it requires). If the attestation server thinks you are trustworthy, it gives you an integrity token that you pass to example.com, and then you can see example.com. The website knows which attestation server issued your integrity token, so you can't create your own.

So no extra software means no attestation server would attest you; means you can't see example.com. End of story. It's the same as the current "your browser is not supported" window, only you can't get around it by changing the user agent.

As usual with these initiatives, bullshit is spread across different specs - this spec by itself implies that any number of attestation servers can exist, and they can check whatever they want, and no browser should be excluded, etc., etc., but practical implementation would probably check installed extensions, etc.

[–] Araozu@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Wouldn't spoofing work? Like, if the browser just sends "yes, no extensions, adblock, blah blah" then how would the attestation server know if that's true? Or does it require signed binaries, or some special hardware?

[–] vvvvv@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

That is conveniently left out of the speck. Attestation server may require signed binary on a client system, it may require whatever it wants really, because why not? It's a website who decides to trust attestation server or not.

[–] count_duckula@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Depends on if they used cryptographic signatures. Those would be impossible to spoof because any change in the client would change the hash completely.

[–] Araozu@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Google silently shipping signed chrome executables soon...

And then people wonder why non chromium browsers are important

[–] mihor@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] hismajesty@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nah, chromium by itself is okay. Its just google, microshit and everyone else using the chromium source to ship as much telemetry, ads, data as possible.

[–] mihor@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

I'm pretty sure Chromium is still phoning home just as it used to for almost a decade. It's a piece of Google's garbage.